How can I prove that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin?

[Ginger2]

correct. i also think though… let assume it is correct that Joseph had ‘resolved’ to ‘keep her a virgin’ before the preganancy,

I believe we all agree on this point.

numbers 30:3-8 combined with 1cor7:36 seem to show that
there is a vow to the lord that can be released by a husband…
this vow has got to be a vow of virginity…for the lord.

• thought I already addressed Numbers 30 *

It seems the evidence to support its meaning was taken out of content by the
'scholar" who cited it. The original source was talking about a passage in Lev that was totally unrelated to Numbers, but the man/scholar who cited his comments **arbitrarily **applied them to Numbers.

Numbers 30 is not talking about a vow of virginity, so you can’t use it to support your personal interpretation of 1 Cor 7:

Ginger

 

[Jason_1977]

Luke 1:31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,

Two Things:
The angel didn’t say Mary would bear the son of a man, he sais she would bear a son and this son would be called “Son of the Most High”.
Who is the “Most High”?

WE don’t know how long or short a time Mary had been betrothed, but we do know couples didn’t begin cohabitation for about a year after being legally married/betrothed to one another.

Ginger

Are going to split hairs? I wasn’t posting in quotations, but the message can be paraphrased the way I said it. I also wasn’t mentioning time durations of anything either. Someone was asking about Mary & Joseph being married. It’s really important to read a little bit of a conversation before throwing your 2 cents in. I used to do that to my parents as a kid & it drove them insane. God Bless!~~~Jason

 

[Luke65]

• thought I already addressed Numbers 30 *

It seems the evidence to support its meaning was taken out of content by the
'scholar" who cited it. The original source was talking about a passage in Lev that was totally unrelated to Numbers, but the man/scholar who cited his comments **arbitrarily **applied them to Numbers.

Numbers 30 is not talking about a vow of virginity, so you can’t use it to support your personal interpretation of 1 Cor 7:

Ginger

Dear Ginger, you keep making one unsupported or false assertion after another - please stop! There is no way you can say from the text that a vow of celibacy is not included in the vows to the Lord in Num. 30. And Dr. Pitre didn’t take anything out of context, nor does what he said matter - he just pointed it out for us. Show us where the text excludes a vow of celibacy or withdraw your assertion that, “Numbers 30 is not talking about a vow of virginity”.

 

[Jason_1977]

I’d love to have a face to face sit down with some of these people. This is kinda frustrating. We’d be able to have a bible in our hands & say LOOK!!!..lol

 

[Ginger2]

Dear Ginger, you keep making one unsupported or false assertion after another - please stop! There is no way you can say from the text that a vow of celibacy is not included in the vows to the Lord in Num. 30.

1. The Numbers 30 doesn’t say " a vow of celibacy" Or do you think the only vow a woman can make is celibacy?
2. Dr. Pitre applied another man’s comments to verses the other man did not comment on. (according to the Website) If I did that to any Catholic here, all you know what would break out with accusations I am intentionally distorting Catholics comments!!! And you know it.
3. I say " There is no way you can say from the text that a vow of celibacy is [absolutely] included in the vows to the Lord in Num. 30.

Show us where the text excludes a vow of celibacy or withdraw your assertion that, “Numbers 30 is not talking about a vow of virginity”.

lol

Look at what you just said. I did not say it absolutely excludes celibacy. I said Pitre took another man’s work out of content to prove Num 30 absolutely refers to celibacy.

Since the text does not specifically include a vow of celibacy, you cannot claim the text is absolutely talking about celibacy.

You should withdraw your assertion.

 

[Luke65]

1. The Numbers 30 doesn’t say " a vow of celibacy" Or do you think the only vow a woman can make is celibacy?
2. Dr. Pitre applied another man’s comments to verses the other man did not comment on. (according to the Website) If I did that to any Catholic here, all you know what would break out with accusations I am intentionally distorting Catholics comments!!! And you know it.
3. I say " There is no way you can say from the text that a vow of celibacy is [absolutely] included in the vows to the Lord in Num. 30.

lol

Look at what you just said. I did not say it absolutely excludes celibacy. I said Pitre took another man’s work out of content to prove Num 30 absolutely refers to celibacy.

Since the text does not specifically include a vow of celibacy, you cannot claim the text is absolutely talking about celibacy.

You should withdraw your assertion.

Forget about Dr. Pitre, he is not the issue. You said, “Numbers 30 is not talking about a vow of virginity”. That is an unsupportable assertion, and almost certainly false.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hello everyone,

Hey friends my name is Jose and I would like to know how to prove to my friends that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin.  God Bless You All  :)

The short answer is you can’t prove it. You must accept it on faith.

Note about the discussion re: Bethlehem. I suggest you read Matthew and Luke and then compare them. In Matthew, Joseph and Mary LIVED in or around Bethlehem. They did not travel there. When the Magi arrived, they found Jesus in a HOUSE, not a stable. When the Holy Family came back from Egypt, rather than RETURN to Judea since the son of Herod was ruling there, they DEPARTED FOR the region of Galilee.

Compare the two Gospels (don’t mix them together) and you will see quite a difference.

Note about Joseph and Mary: Again from Matthew, Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she bore a son. Why does Matthew say this? Matthew doesn’t have all the build up that Luke has to show the divine origins of Jeus, and he uses this statement to show, along with the visit of the Angel to Joseph, that Jesus was the Son of God. It does not mean or imply anything else.

Mary’s virginity will be a never ending argument. Each of us will believe what we want to believe (or what our particular church believes), and trying to convince others who disagree that your point of view is correct is useless.

 

[Jason_1977]

alright, I’m breaking out my battle bible, lol. The one in the camouflage bible cover & tabs out the wazoo marking apologetic scripture. Numbers 30 isnt tabbed so I’m going to take a stab at this one…just finished reading it. It seems to govern the way women make pledges to the Lord & how they can & cant be overturned by the head of whatever household. the vow of a woman or any pledge…(verse 10)…I dont think celebacy is specifically mentioned, though in the generality in which this reads, theres no reason why it shouldnt follow suit & be allowed. A vow to lose 20 lbs, or a vow to remain chaste, if the head of the household doesnt disagree, then the vow stands…this is how I’m understanding this…
Respectfully,

Jason

 

[Luke65]

alright, I’m breaking out my battle bible, lol. The one in the camouflage bible cover & tabs out the wazoo marking apologetic scripture. Numbers 30 isnt tabbed so I’m going to take a stab at this one…just finished reading it. It seems to govern the way women make pledges to the Lord & how they can & cant be overturned by the head of whatever household. the vow of a woman or any pledge…(verse 10)…I dont think celebacy is specifically mentioned, though in the generality in which this reads, theres no reason why it shouldnt follow suit & be allowed. A vow to lose 20 lbs, or a vow to remain chaste, if the head of the household doesnt disagree, then the vow stands…this is how I’m understanding this…
Respectfully,

Jason

Right, except why does this passage speak only about a vow a girl makes before she gets married? What normally changes when she gets married? It seems this passage is specifically about a vow of celibacy, but it also includes any other vow. That’s how I am understanding it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

Just a point of clarification: celebacy is a promise not to marry while, chastity is a promise not to have sexual relaions.

Those verses never mention a vow of celibacy. Catholics talk like celibacy is the only possible vow a woman can make to God.

It goes on to say if a married woman makes a vow…

For a married woman to vow celibacy without first getting permission from her husband (and even then) would be a contradiction to God’s law.

Now, what I find amazing is how you wish to conform Mary to your understanding of what she is to do - even to the point of putting words in her mouth! Why not try this on for size… God goes and creates everything out of nothing - simply because He said so (Genesis) So, while you do not argue that Christ is the Son of God - and Mary is the Mother of God … somehow, she just can not have remained a virgin. And, why is this…? Well, that is easy … because the Catholic Chuch said she remained a virgin! And, the Church founded by Christ on Peter that gave the world the full (as opposed to abridged) Bible could never get this right!

God bless

 

[Ginger2]

Now, what I find amazing is how you wish to conform Mary to your understanding of what she is to do - even to the point of putting words in her mouth! …

I was not speaking of Mary, but of Numbers 30.

It is you who is determined to interpret everything in a way that supports your view of perpetual virginity.

Mary’s virginity is irrelevant except to the extent she was a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus. For me, that is enough to know.

What words did I put in Mary’s mouth?

 

[Luke65]

What words did I put in Mary’s mouth?

Besides “yet” (#182)? “a husband I do not know.” There’s no “yet”!

 

[Ginger2]

Besides “yet” (#182)? “a husband I do not know.” There’s no “yet”!

I said it “could be”

I used brackets to show the word is not in the text

I was making a point, not quoting Mary

 

[Luke65]

I said it “could be”

I used brackets to show the word is not in the text

I was making a point, not quoting Mary

You amplified the quote in contradiction to what it actually says. That is the kind of thing St. Paul meant when he said, “so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Or as St. Jerome said about Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, “because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly.”

 

[Ginger2]

You amplified the quote in contradiction to what it actually says. That is the kind of thing St. Paul meant when he said, “so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

That’s hilarious coming from a Catholic.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With the site being down a few things didn’t get adequately addressed.

Earlier, Ginger, you spoke of the fact that Martin Luther had expressed his belief in the Virgin but you had a very interesting take on why he believed.

I think what you said was that he believed it because it’s what he had been taught.

Umm, wasn’t he taught all the other Catholic teachings. . .some of which he rejected, and which you think he was ‘correct’ to reject?

So why was Luther able to ‘reject’ some teachings and not others?

If the teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity was false, it was false from the get-go–and it should have been addressed from the get-go. It wasn’t.

It strikes me that you engage in fantastical speculations (I mean, Luther himself, having always believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, obviously never gave us a testimony such as "You know, I was taught this and heck, I trusted the Church so I’m going to cling to it even though years from now people are going to read the same scripture and see clearly that it’s false and I myself should have seen it if it was false but I didn’t. .)

So Ginger tells us Luther ‘must have’ clung to the tradition because it ‘was taught to him.’ Oh REALLY? Is it so difficult for a reasonable person to believe that he taught this as truth because he believed it was true? Come on, give the man some credit. He was not afraid to go after all the teachings that the Spirit was leading him to see as false–why would he miss this one particular teaching?

It seems you really have to grasp at straws. . .Mary ‘could have meant’ this, Luther ‘could have thought’ this. Well, Mary could have meant exactly what the Church teaches she meant too. And Martin Luther, in his teachings about the perpetual virginity of Mary as a Christian truth, could have believed in this exactly because it was truth, not just because it was 'taught to him.'

Poor Luther. He was right regarding the Perpetual Virginity. . .but many of his own followers today don’t want to accept it.

 

[Luke65]

That’s hilarious coming from a Catholic.

That’s because you don’t understand the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Hint: the Catholic Church, of which St. Paul is a member, is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”. Learn from Her and you will understand, and you will expound on Scripture without contradicting Scripture.

 

[Dchsknight]

you know guys this thread is retarded. all you bickering about something that in the end does not matter. In the end when we stand before our father in heaven, he is not gonna ask you if you blieve that his Mama was a perpetual Virgin or not… Get over yourselves and move on to Topics that truly matter.

Mary was A virgin till the day she died. She had Christ why would she need a man. Since marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church why would Joseph and Mary need to have sex when the Symbol was walking and talking in front of them?

Get over yourselves and blindness and want to bicker and argue, Just to hear your own voice. Stop dishonoring our mother in heaven and move on. We do not go around and mock your mothers, stop mocking ours and just deal with the FACT that Mary a good Jewish woman followed God to the letter and was a virgin until she died and was assumed into heaven.

You all are a bunch of Resounding Gongs…Useful for nothing.

 

[Luke65]

you know guys this thread is retarded. all you bickering about something that in the end does not matter. In the end when we stand before our father in heaven, he is not gonna ask you if you blieve that his Mama was a perpetual Virgin or not… Get over yourselves and move on to Topics that truly matter.

Mary was A virgin till the day she died. She had Christ why would she need a man. Since marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church why would Joseph and Mary need to have sex when the Symbol was walking and talking in front of them?

Get over yourselves and blindness and want to bicker and argue, Just to hear your own voice. Stop dishonoring our mother in heaven and move on. We do not go around and mock your mothers, stop mocking ours and just deal with the FACT that Mary a good Jewish woman followed God to the letter and was a virgin until she died and was assumed into heaven.

You all are a bunch of Resounding Gongs…Useful for nothing.

Boy, I thought I was impatient! I am! There are a lot of “retarded” threads here, but this thread is about a dogma of the faith. And I believe we have presented a strong Scriptural case, a strong theological case, and the historical case is overwhelming and undeniable. But all we can do is plant the seed and water it, only God can make it grow. And that’s where prayer comes in.

 

[Dchsknight]

Boy, I thought I was impatient! I am! There are a lot of “retarded” threads here, but this thread is about a dogma of the faith. And I believe we have presented a strong Scriptural case, a strong theological case, and the historical case is overwhelming and undeniable. But all we can do is plant the seed and water it, only God can make it grow. And that’s where prayer comes in.

It is not that i am impateint it is just very stupid to argue about this when it does not matter. AND NO it is not a Dogma of Faith it is a Dogma of the Church While just as important to learn it does not have anything to do with Faith.

Believeing if Mary was a virgin or Not, does not get you into heaven. It has no merit or baring for entrance into heaven in any way shape or form.

How ever i will choose to honor my ever virgin queen, because it is unwise to insult the CREATOR of the universe’s mother. the same being that can wipe you off the face of the earth with a bat of his eye lash. IT is unwise to mock the King’s mother, that is stupid.

That is like walking up to Mary and slapping her in the face and calling her a whore, Very stupid to do in front of Jesus and his knights( which i belong to), Even worse to do it when Jesus is not looking.

It is better to just accept it or not and move on and when we get to heaven God will correct us and show us the truth.

We should be discussing things that have more baring with Salvation.